I found this interesting. A man walked away from a rollover in a highly disoriented state. Weather was borderline and he wasn't adequately dressed. A ground search didn't find him, nor helicopter passes using night vision goggles. A police UAV was used to pinpoint his position from his body heat.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/video/8363909/story.html

There is a lot of discussion concerning the negatives of UAVs, but there are a lot of positives. This is an example of what we will see more often in the future and it will revolutionize SAR. Think of UAVs as the robotic equivalent of St Bernards and their cask of brandy......

Where is the brandy on the UAV?

Instead of hellfire-missiles they could carry soft containers filled with brandy and drop those to the person in distress...

Just sayin´.

Of course, the hellfire missile would be great if they needed to start a fire......

Joking apart, are these vehicles equiped to drop anything to someone lost or injured ?
If human resuers cant reach the the person promptly, it would seem that in some cases life could be preserved by dropping supplies.
Water, first aid kit, a blanket, matches, a two way radio, or if dangerous wildlife is in the area a firearm, could all save a life.

Or are the vehicles not suitably equiped for dropping anything.
If they can drop bombs for miltary purposes then they can drop anything else of similar size and weight. Or they only equiped for firing missiles.

Nay, the joking must continue!



How does that song go? "Send lawyers, guns, and money; the crap has hit the fan"...

To get at least partially serious, UAV technology is just beginning to evolve. I don't have any trouble envisioning models that could indeed carry critical supplies (like water) into victims in distress. The hallmarks of UAV technology are versatility and adaptability.

SAR will soon be a whole new ball game....

There are some rotary wing UAVs that are designed to carry supplies. I have never seen a fixed wing UAV used for that though. Most of the ones used by law enforcement are small and have very limited range, I doubt they would be able to carry more than a small survival kit and bottled water.

In this case, it was a small rotary wing unit. The officer fairly bristled at some of the media's "drone" questions (as noted in the link). Considering he saved a life where other methods failed, he was quite justified. It's hardly new, as FLIR has been used for SAR on full-size police helicopters for years and years. But somebody looking for a sexy angle on a hot-button topic isn't exactly the considered voice of reason. Two cheers, as the man said, for democracy.

Yeah. The argument is fallacy. The impression given to the media is that UAVs are superior to police helicopters because in this particular case the UAV was able to find him when other methods (including the police helicopter with standard NOD) was unable to find him.

Well yes, in this case that is what happened, but thats because of the sensor, not the platform. Thermals/FLIR can be (and are) carried by many police helicopters around the world. That department could have installed one on theirs instead of buying the UAV and it would have worked out the exact same way. Or hell, had a guy in the back carrying a handheld FLIR used by some firefighters. The police helicopter has more endurance than those little quadrotors.

I'm glad they found the guy, but there's so much drama regarding the use of UAVs nowadays and it really shouldn't be as big a deal as it is.

Hmmm, when you throw cost per flight hour into the equation the fact that the UAV did this is a big deal. Yep, both helo's and fixed wing aircraft also carry FLIR, but they cost more to buy and more to fly. The little quad motor UAV's need next to nothing for a take-off and landing zone, and if one goes down in rough terrain it's NBD. Yes, a helo might have more endurance, but depending on where it started flying and transit time, its time in the search area may be limited. OTOH a relatively cheap UAV (compared to a helo), in the trunk of a police cruiser can be more cost effective and transit time (and $$$) is nil.

(Please don't try to make the argument that cost is no issue in this day of serious budget issues. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.)

The UAV makes the technology available to the typical SAR operation at a relatively small cost. In 1980 I was ivolved in what became a very high profile search for a missing Park Ranger (Paul Fugate) in Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona. We got assistance from the Air Force and they flew in a helicopter with equipment that they could not discuss and told us they could find no sign. It was definitely not standard practice at the time. Contrast that with the current situation, a sign of things to come. the cheap, accessible UAVplatform will really make a difference.

Yep, the technology that at one time was kept under wraps is now in common use and being manufactured in numbers that make it cost effective to throw in the trunk of a patrol car. That ready access by the guy in the field without having to bring in dedicated air support that costs thousand$ of dollars per flight hour and takes time to reach the search area is what makes the small UAV's a game-changer. It is about the platform.

UAV's cannot yet do everything manned aircraft can do, but with time those limitations will be refined and some will be overcome. Most of the small UAV's though will be limited in payload as any extra ounces they carry is that much less fuel they can carry which means less time available for search. One way this can be overcome will be to have a modular payload with fuel being part of the payload. One payload may be max'd out on fuel with the idea of maximizing search time/range. Once the victim has been located, another payload may be used to take a package to him that includes water, a radio, FAK or whatever is deemed necessary. That UAV can have very limited fuel because it is going on a direct one-way flight with zero search can land next to the victim and serve as a beacon for any follow-on ... or, just have the first UAV land next to the vic to serve as a beacon and allow follow-on UAV's (and boots) to go-to that beacon. GPS coordinates are nice, but a red flashing beacon parked next to the victim is a sure thing.

I have no idea how the SAR UAV community intends to use these assets, but it's really just a matter of thinking outside the box and use the asset in new ways. Some will work and some will fail.

Well, the helicopter flew anyway, so you haven't actually saved anything.

You do bring up a good point. Quadrotors can fit in a trunk, and select units would be on scene with them when they're needed and that's something a helicopter can't always do. Another tool in the toolbox, not able to replace the helo, but able to fill a niche anyway. I still think they should install FLIR on their helicopter though

Now larger, long endurance UAVs are another thing. They may indeed replace helicopters one day in major metropolitan areas. It's weird though, some people just don't like the IDEA of a UAV loitering around, but for some reason they don't have as strong a reaction to police helicopters used in the same role.

The relatively low cost of UAVs would allow more widespread use than full size crewed aircraft.
I can forsee the day when someone lost or injured can be searched for not by A drone, but by a whole fleet of them.

In many cases the same vehicles could be used to monitor crop yields, to inspect overhead utility lines, and for many routine law enforcement purposes.
In the case of a serious fire, observation via a UAV would allow firefighters to deploy the available rescources to the best effect.

I consider it probable that these vehicles could be used for commerical or industrial purposes a lot of the time, but with arrangements for speedy hire or loan to TPTB in case of need.

Sorta OT -- Things are changing. The Navy's next UAV: X47B

It might be the noticability. Helicopters are big and relatively noisy compared to a UAV.

A side note: the helicopter involved was a STARS air ambulance, not a police aircraft. STARS is, as I understand it, a private not-for-profit foundation (with, I might add, a fine reputation -- and a friend in need for those who won't survive a ground ambulance trip). Since they land in all sorts of impromptu places, the night vision gear makes sense; but they are not primarily a SAR outfit.

A second aside: they recently moved operations to a nearby airport and have been making training runs over my house. Sweet little chopper, I think. http://www.stars.ca/what-we-do/helicopter-air-ambulance/our-helicopter-fleet

Also helicopters are ridiculously expensive to own and operate, so they tend to be used conservatively. Departments may want to use them for many more operations, but they don't have the option. They only have one and the flight time has to be balanced by maintenance time and budget. People know this implicitly, but they keep being told how cheap UAVs are to operate, and they think they'll be in the sky constantly looking over fences and through windows and roofs monitoring people's lives.

When they can travel in sub zero temps during a blizzard and drop pizza, a tent and sleeping bags, then we will have something of use.

That is the capability we will probably see fairly soon. "Traveling during a blizzard" will always be somewhat problematical, but far better to risk a UAV than a manned unit, or even foot troops, for that matter.